A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 2nd 03, 08:54 PM
Bob Knowlden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200

The FX5200 is a low-end DX9 card, but it may lack enough raw power to run
DX9 features.

The 4200 is from the previous generation; it's pretty fast (and sometimes
overclockable to near spec 4600 performance levels). It's DX8 only.

You don't mention your CPU/RAM, so I can't guess whether your card is
entirely the limiting factor.

If you can talk yourself into wasting more cash, I'd suggest a Radeon
9500pro, if you can still find one, or a 9600. Keep your hard-earned cash
with ATI in Canada. ;-)

Bob Knowlden

Spam dodger may be in use. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video
card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how
great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but

with
the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my

price
range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus

FX5200
($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't

know
if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic
(comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty)
GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus
FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering
here?

Thanks for your help,
Mitchua




  #2  
Old August 2nd 03, 09:00 PM
Mitchua
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message
...
The FX5200 is a low-end DX9 card, but it may lack enough raw power to run
DX9 features.

The 4200 is from the previous generation; it's pretty fast (and sometimes
overclockable to near spec 4600 performance levels). It's DX8 only.

You don't mention your CPU/RAM, so I can't guess whether your card is
entirely the limiting factor.


I have an AMD 1800+XP @ 1621MHZ, 512MB DDR, Asus A7V266-E mobo, and the
Radeon 7000 64MB OC'ed to 173MHz. I think it's a pretty good bet the video
card is the limiting factor :-)


If you can talk yourself into wasting more cash, I'd suggest a Radeon
9500pro, if you can still find one, or a 9600. Keep your hard-earned cash
with ATI in Canada. ;-)


The 9000 and 9200 are in my price range. Would they beat the FX5200?

I've always gone with ATI but I don't want to lay down $300 for one of their
Radeon PRO series...yet :-)


Bob Knowlden

Spam dodger may be in use. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new

video
card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how
great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but

with
the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my

price
range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus

FX5200
($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't

know
if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic
(comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year

warranty)
GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus
FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering
here?

Thanks for your help,
Mitchua






  #3  
Old August 2nd 03, 09:06 PM
Mickey Mouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just purchased from

www.newegg.com

a Sapphire 9000 for a little over $50.00 (US DOLLARS). This is an ATI
product and when I installed it on my sons Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard it
has functioned without any problems. It is about 3 times faster than the
ATI Radeon 7000 VE which I also Own.

If you have the VE then you might try uninstalling all the drivers and first
downloading and installing DX 9.0b from Microsoft. The new drivers for that
card require it and seem to work pretty well.

I recommend you check out the link below. This is at Toms Hardware. It
shows a chart with a wide range of video cards so you can compare them in a
logical manner.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...2.html#aquanox

This is the most recent comparison of video new video cards it is a guide
and not a straight comparison. It is different and recommends buying a
specific card for the free video games it offers. I guess that could be a
possible option. My kids liked playing Baldurs Gate we got one time free
with a video card.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...714/index.html

Hope this helps a little bit.


"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video
card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how
great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but

with
the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my

price
range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus

FX5200
($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't

know
if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic
(comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty)
GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus
FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering
here?

Thanks for your help,
Mitchua




  #4  
Old August 3rd 03, 12:00 AM
Mitchua
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

"booster" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
that 4200 price is very cheap and looks like a poor performer. you

certainly
won't get the benchmark scores you see for the normal priced ti4200s. If
price is a limiting factor then just go with the 5200. it doesn't sound
like you want the fastest graphics card, just a technologically better

but
lower end of the faster cards 5600+,9600+, and so on. The 5200 is faster
than the r9000 though. If you're going get a radeon get a 9200 at least


I disagree. A ti4200 is a ti4200 regardles of who makes it. It will have

the
same nVidia GPU as any other ti4200 and should perform similarly. nVidia

do
exercise a certain amount of control over what happens with their GPUs. I

am
very happy with my ti4200. It's a Leadtek but if I could have found a
no-name one significantly cheaper without the software package that I'll
never use I would have bought it.
--


From what I've read, the generic makers do need to use certain standards of
components. They can't just put on DDR with half the Mhz. Asus has
improved on the design but the basic 4200ti is still better than a fx5200,
right? I don't buy into that DX9.0 hype...yet :-)

--Mitchua


  #5  
Old August 3rd 03, 12:36 AM
MICHAEL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

$180.00 for any Ti 4200 sounds too steep,since the 5200's came out prices
have dropped.My BSG was only 95.00.
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

"booster" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
that 4200 price is very cheap and looks like a poor performer. you

certainly
won't get the benchmark scores you see for the normal priced ti4200s. If
price is a limiting factor then just go with the 5200. it doesn't sound
like you want the fastest graphics card, just a technologically better

but
lower end of the faster cards 5600+,9600+, and so on. The 5200 is faster
than the r9000 though. If you're going get a radeon get a 9200 at least


I disagree. A ti4200 is a ti4200 regardles of who makes it. It will have

the
same nVidia GPU as any other ti4200 and should perform similarly. nVidia

do
exercise a certain amount of control over what happens with their GPUs. I

am
very happy with my ti4200. It's a Leadtek but if I could have found a
no-name one significantly cheaper without the software package that I'll
never use I would have bought it.
--
~misfit~


"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new

video
card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me

how
great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but

with
the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my

price
range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus

FX5200
($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I

don't
know
if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a

generic
(comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year

warranty)
GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus
FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be

considering
here?

Thanks for your help,
Mitchua






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003




  #6  
Old August 3rd 03, 03:12 AM
Bob Knowlden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't know about the Radeon 9000, 9100, or 9200. They are apparently DX8
cards, regardless of the 9xxx designation.

(Reminds me of the infamous nVidia Geforce 4 MX cards - they were
essentially updated GF2 cards, DX7 devices, rather than DX8 like the GF4
ti.)

Based on http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/video/fx5200vsr9200/, the FX
5200 is at least a little better than the 9200. The 5200 is also a DX9 card,
although it may not be a good choice to run DX9 games, when they appear. In
my limited experience, the nVidia hardware/drivers are less finicky than the
ATI ones. (This is just an impression, not based on wide and rigorous
testing.)

I'm still pushin' that 9600pro ($178 USD, with free shipping, at
www.newegg.com.).

Have fun.

Bob Kn.

"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message
...
The FX5200 is a low-end DX9 card, but it may lack enough raw power to

run
DX9 features.

The 4200 is from the previous generation; it's pretty fast (and

sometimes
overclockable to near spec 4600 performance levels). It's DX8 only.

You don't mention your CPU/RAM, so I can't guess whether your card is
entirely the limiting factor.


I have an AMD 1800+XP @ 1621MHZ, 512MB DDR, Asus A7V266-E mobo, and the
Radeon 7000 64MB OC'ed to 173MHz. I think it's a pretty good bet the

video
card is the limiting factor :-)


If you can talk yourself into wasting more cash, I'd suggest a Radeon
9500pro, if you can still find one, or a 9600. Keep your hard-earned

cash
with ATI in Canada. ;-)


The 9000 and 9200 are in my price range. Would they beat the FX5200?

I've always gone with ATI but I don't want to lay down $300 for one of

their
Radeon PRO series...yet :-)


(snip)


  #7  
Old August 3rd 03, 03:48 AM
Mitchua
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message
...
I don't know about the Radeon 9000, 9100, or 9200. They are apparently DX8

SNIP
I'm still pushin' that 9600pro ($178 USD, with free shipping, at
www.newegg.com.).

In Canadian dollars that's like $250 + 8% GST + border taxes = more than my
life :-)


  #8  
Old August 3rd 03, 11:43 PM
Ancra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:00:39 GMT, "Mitchua" wrote:


From what I've read, the generic makers do need to use certain standards of
components. They can't just put on DDR with half the Mhz. Asus has
improved on the design but the basic 4200ti is still better than a fx5200,
right? I don't buy into that DX9.0 hype...yet :-)


I say buy the cheap Ti4200. 1 year warranty, right?
The FX5200 does handle heavy anisotropic filtering better than the
Ti4200. But with much faster pixelwrites, you have better framerate
reserves in the Ti4200. You might not get all the eyecandy of the
FX5200, but you'll always be able to have a smooth framerate. Even at
high resolutions.
And the Ti4200 carries a ton of eyecandy compared to 7000. You'll get
onboard transformation engines and pixelshaders. The Ti4200 does all
those things like realtime shadows, fire, smoke, fog, local/directed
lighting, half reflections in wavy water, on the fly.

I'm not so convinced the FX5200 is such a bad choice, but the general
suspicion is that it doesn't have the muscle to make its DX9 support
relevant. Me, I think it's basicly a question of going down in
resolution. Down to 800x600 or even 648x480. That would make eyecandy
less relevant, I suppose. But you know it's cheap. That's the bottom
line of it.


ancra
  #9  
Old August 9th 03, 04:59 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:
"Bob Knowlden" wrote in
:

I don't know about the Radeon 9000, 9100, or 9200. They are apparently
DX8 cards, regardless of the 9xxx designation.


Something else to keep in mind with Radeon-based cards is that their OpenGL
support is extremely bad for all models below the 9500. This is a critical
issue for non-gaming OpenGL but is also somewhat problematic for gamers.
The lower cards just aren't worth the money.



If you buy a 5200 either get a 256mb one
or if you get a 128mb one MAKE SURE It has a 128bit Memory bus
some only have 64bit memory bus.

:-) Greg B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.